House Changes Rules to Protect DeLay

[jamotto]

Link

quote:

---

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - House Republicans approved a party rules change Wednesday that could allow Majority leader Tom DeLay to retain his leadership post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury on state political corruption charges.

By a voice vote, and with a handful of lawmakers voicing opposition, the House Republican Conference decided that a party committee of several dozen members would review any felony indictment of a party leader and recommend at that time whether the leader should step aside.

The current party rule in this area requires House Republican leaders and the heads of the various committees to relinquish their positions if indicted for a crime that could bring a prison term of at least two years. It makes no distinction between a federal and state indictment. Three of DeLay's political associates already have been indicted by that Texas grand jury.

Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, said that under the change embraced Wednesday, the House Republican Steering Committee would have 30 legislative days to review a felony indictment and recommend to all House Republicans whether a lawmaker who is charged could remain as a committee chairman or leader.

There is no indication that DeLay, a 57-year-old Texan, will be indicted in connection with a Travis County, Texas, campaign finance investigation. But the majority leader has called the probe a partisan attack on him.

Bonilla said there was no vote count taken in the closed meeting but said the proposal passed overwhelmingly.

"This takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict" party leaders and make a name for himself, Bonilla said.

Lawmakers said that DeLay did not publicly push for the change and did not participate in the closed-door debate which lasted several hours.

Bonilla said the leader would not have to step aside while fellow party members considered whether an indictment was frivolous.

The grand jury is probing alleged irregularities in 2002 state legislative races. Republican victories in those contests enabled DeLay ultimately to win support for a congressional redistricting plan that resulted in the GOP's gain of five House seats in Texas in this month's elections.

House Democrats have a step-aside provision that applies to both federal and state proceedings similar to the current Republican rule, and their leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, was highly critical of the GOP proposal.

"If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing," Pelosi said.

In September, the grand jury indicted three political operatives associated with DeLay and eight companies, alleging campaign finance violations related to corporate money spent in the 2002 legislative races. The corporate donations were made to Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee created with help from DeLay.

DeLay said he was not questioned or subpoenaed as part of the investigation, led by retiring prosecutor Ronnie Earle.

The majority leader said after the indictments, "This has been a dragged-out 500-day investigation, and you do the political math. This is no different than other kinds of partisan attacks that have been leveled against me that are dropped after elections."

In October, the House ethics committee rebuked DeLay for appearing to link political donations to a legislative favor and improperly persuading U.S. aviation authorities to intervene in the Texas redistricting dispute.

---

[Grizzle]

This is my fvorite line...

"This takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict party leaders and make a name for himself, Bonilla said."

Who do they think they're fooling? This is nothing more than an selfish attempt to retain power. It's political corruption, plain and simple. If Delay does get indicted I sure hope the good folks in Texas don't re-elect him (they won't if they have an ounce of decency left.)

[Guest]

Delay is being chased by the Democrats, it's another way for them to go after the most powerful republicans and try to Neuter anything that the Republicans do, just as they had Jumping Jim Jeffords go independent in order to get thier majority back.

THe Democrats are despersate and will use whatever means necassary for the ends that they want.

Tom Delay is now protected, and you will see this socalled indictment go by the wayside now, because the MAIN thing they wanted to accomplish has been killed.

The voters have spoken, and the Dem's are pissed.

The Republicans have EVERY reason to protect themselves and the leadership right now, because the Dem's are flipping out, and have lost their collective minds.

[Grizzle]

Come on Jag, Delay is far from respectable. The whole thing started long before the election. Is this the type of 'moral values' we can expect from the Republican party now?

Come on, admit it, if the roles were reversed you be screaming corruption too.

There's a downside to every victory and now the Reppy's will have their feet held to the fire and their motives scrutinized even more than before. They'd better walk the talk or they'll be in one big heap-o-trouble.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

In September, the grand jury indicted three political operatives associated with DeLay and eight companies, alleging campaign finance violations related to corporate money spent in the 2002 legislative races. The corporate donations were made to Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee created with help from DeLay.

---

This strikes me as a similar tactic used against Newt Gingrich when they questioned his PAC money.

What you all need to consider is that this has been going back and forth for a long time, since after Tip O'Neil stepped down. Republicans went after Democrat Speaker Jim Wright over his allegedly laundering campaign funds through mass book purchases that nobody would read. The people of Washington State voted out Democrat Speaker Tom Foley after he came out against term limits. Democrats went after Newt Gingrich over his PAC, allegedly used to fund college courses. Democrats then went after Bob Livingston for past sexual affairs before he even took the Speakership. In the Senate, it started with the Democrats attack against Republican John Tower, when he was nominated to be Secretary of Defense. Democrats also went after Bob Packwood so Republicans went after Robert Torricelli.

This attack against Tom DeLay is about Democrats using Republican rules against them in order to get back at him for the Texas redistricting. Republicans are innoculating DeLay from this attack.

It's funny that the only Representative to actually get ousted from the House recently was Jim Traficant, and it was the Democrats who tossed out one of their own.

[Grizzle]

Nice post Steve. Just goes to show how political cronyism is blind to party affiliation.

The question then becomes whether this an intrinsic part of political process or something that we the people can cure with our votes. I think the best solution would be to have a viable third party to act as a moderating force, but I'd also be concerned that with such entrenched political idealogy a third party would be forced to succumb to the same corrupt practices.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

The question then becomes whether this an intrinsic part of political process or something that we the people can cure with our votes.

---

That is a good question.

If you read biographies of the Founders, such as the excellent John Adams by David McCollough, you'll see that this kind of politics has been going on since the campaign between Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

However, I think a lot of it is also generational, because the Senators eventually feel personally affronted and become hardened to their enemies. I say generational because it will take a full turnover in the Senate for the personalities to change.

Look at this past election. The Senate lost Tom Daschle, Fritz Hollings, Zell Miller, Bob Graham, John Breaux, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Don Nickles, and more will follow as long-time senators retire and new, younger senators emerge. The freshman senators will either establish new personal relations or join in on a Hatfield vs. McCoy feud.

On the other hand, a repeal of the 17th amendment would allow state legislatures to recall their senators if the legislature feels that the senator is not behaving in the State's interest. That might have put a reign on the behavior of senators.

Another nice thing about a repeal of the 17th amendment is that if a third party were to ever gain control of a state legislature, it could appoint a third party senator, where a popular vote might not have elected one.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

On the other hand, a repeal of the 17th amendment would allow state legislatures to recall their senators if the legislature feels that the senator is not behaving in the State's interest. That might have put a reign on the behavior of senators.

Another nice thing about a repeal of the 17th amendment is that if a third party were to ever gain control of a state legislature, it could appoint a third party senator, where a popular vote might not have elected one.

---

A repeal of the 17th amendement, oh, be still my beating heart...

That would fix SO MANY things....

But it is wishful thinking, GREAT wishful thinking, but wishful thinking all the same...

[Guest]

A snippet of an article posted at Powerlineblog.com.

quote:

---

Ronnie Earle, the Democratic District Attorney in Travis County, Texas, is a notorious partisan who has a history of bringing politically-motivated indictments. His most infamous indictment was when he charged Kay Bailey Hutchison, then the Treasurer of Texas, with assault. Earle actually took this trumped-up case to trial, only to be humiliated when he had to dismisss the case during trial.

In September, Earle indicted three aides to Tom DeLay, accusing them of financial improprieties in connection with the Texas legislative elections in 2002. Earle alleges that the aides engaged in "money laundering." What happened is that a number of corporations, including Sears, made contributions to the Republican National Committee. The RNC made contributions to Republican legislative candidates, which corporations are not permitted to do.

That's it. That's the purported "crime." Needless to say, these sorts of contributions are made constantly by both parties. Earle's charges are ludicrous, and were made (less than two months before the election) for the sole purpose of embarrassing Delay. The charges will be dismissed and will soon be forgotten.

It is entirely reasonable to believe, however, that in the meantime, Earle may also indict the Majority Leader. It would be an outrageous injustice for a single, politically-motivated district attorney to dictate who is eligible to serve in a leadership position in the House of Representatives. Thus, the rule change is wise and appropriate.

---

BTW, the Democrats have NO such ethics rules, so they are using Republican rules against the Republicans.

Nancy Pelozi, the hypocrite B$%#h, said that it was wrong of the Republicans to lower thier ethical standards, when in fact, the Democrats have no such standards at ALL.

[Grizzle]

Steve, another good post. I wonder, are you or have you ever considered teaching?

Jag, I'm not entirely clear on which rules are being changed, but both the House and Senate have ethics rules that govern both parties, so the point is kind of moot.

Now, if the Republicans have their own rules on top of those already in place then I would wonder why on earth they do. Maybe it's to further their notion of superiority by self-imposing even more rules sort of like "yeah there are ethics rules, but we're 110% ethical, so there"

In any event it's pointless to pile on self-imposed rules if you are going to change them on a whim. Perhaps their first self-imposed rule should be, "We shall not change the rules to protect one of our own."

Now I wonder if the House and Senate ethics commitees are the final word on ethics violations and if so does having self-imposed rules matter at all?

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

I wonder, are you or have you ever considered teaching?

---

Only here.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

.....In any event it's pointless to pile on self-imposed rules if you are going to change them on a whim.

---

It was not changed on a whim.

It was changed based on an attack by a Demcrat political HACK.

He went after Delay for one purpose and one purpose only, to use Self imposed ethics rules on the current Republican leadership in order to remove him from power.

Therefore the rule change was made due to self preservation, so that these types of attacks would therefore not occur.

If the rules had remained in place, the next head of the house would have faced the same type of partisn attacks by Democrat operatives.

The Democrats were AGAIN using the Judicial system to further their goals when they could not get those aims put forward via the ballot box.

[Steve Schacher]

DeLay Appears To Be Off The Hook

quote:

---

The powerful GOP chieftain is unlikely to be indicted by a state grand jury probing alleged campaign finance violations in Texas, according to an official involved in the investigation.

"No, no, I really donÔÇÖt think DeLay will be indicted," the official told CBSNews.com. "And to be quite honest, [DeLayÔÇÖs] lawyers know that."

Anticipating a possible indictment by a state grand jury in Travis County (Austin) Texas, House Republicans last week took steps to protect DeLay's position by changing a party rule that would have forced him to step aside as majority leader if indicted on a felony charge. The change will leave it up to a committee of GOP House members to decide whether an indicted leader should step down.

---

Gee...

Did the Republicans change their rules for nothing, or did the Democrats back down after the GOP protected DeLay?

I wonder...

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

.....did the Democrats back down after the GOP protected DeLay?....

---

Ya think?